Most likely Buddhawajana is a Thai pronunciation of Buddhavacana which literally means "Buddha spoke". In a nutshell this means studying the earliest suttas and vinaya and emphasizing their importance over other texts, which is already a common practice in many Thai Buddhist monasteries, especially in the West.

Most likely Buddhawajana is a Thai pronunciation of Buddhavacana which literally means "Buddha spoke".

Yes, I couldn't see anything that looked new.

"Right effort is effort with wisdom. Because where there is wisdom, there is interest. The desire to know something is wisdom at work. Being mindful is not difficult. But it’s difficult to be continuously aware. For that you need right effort. But it does not require a great deal of energy. It’s relaxed perseverance in reminding yourself to be aware. When you are aware, wisdom unfolds naturally, and there is still more interest." - Sayadaw U Tejaniya

"At one time the Blessed One was living in Vesali, in the Great Wood. Then a certain Vajjian bhikkhu went to him...and said: 'Lord, more than 150 training rules come up for recitation every fortnight. I cannot train in reference to them.'

"'Bhikkhu, can you train in reference to the three trainings: the training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in heightened discernment?'

"'Yes, Lord, I can....'

"'Then train in reference to those three trainings....When you train in reference to the training in heightened virtue... heightened mind...heightened discernment, passion will be abandoned in you, aversion...delusion will be abandoned in you. Then with the abandoning of passion...aversion... delusion, you will not do anything unskillful or engage in any evil.'

"Later on, that bhikkhu trained in heightened virtue... heightened mind...heightened discernment....Passion... aversion...delusion were abandoned in him....He did not do anything unskillful or engage in any evil." (A.III.85)

This has became an issue in Thailand only recently but Wat Pah Pong (Ajahn Chah tradition) already raised this point with Ajahn Kukrit and removed his monastery from the list of branches several years ago. His general approach did not fit it with the emphasis of the forest tradition which is based on respect for elders and following long-established ways of practice. Ajahn Kukrit insists that only the words of the Buddha himself -- not even those of arahants like Sariputta or Moggallana, let alone present day teachers -- should be taken as authoritative and studied.

Actually this dispute is only about the proper ritual or way of reciting the Patimokkha rules. Normally, Theravada monks everywhere recite all 227 rules (but there are many hundreds of rules in the Vinaya which are not recited, although they should be followed). Ajahn Kukrit thinks that monks don't have to recite the 75 sekhiya and 7 adhikarana-samatha which come at the very end. But he still keeps all those rules of course.

The commentary says:Tasmiṁ samaye paññattāni sikkhāpadāneva sandhāyetaṁ vuttaṁ. ("This was said with regard to the training precepts as laid down at that time.")

There are some followers of Ajahn Kukrit who are open-minded and want to learn more, but unfortunately many of them are "new converts" who are full of faith in their Ajahn, so much so that they take him as the One and Only Authority on Buddhism in Thailand. I suspect that his character and his background (he was a military officer) is part of it as well, he can be very convincing when he speaks and draw a lot of people like a leader figure. Apparently he has some very hi-so followers who donate a lot of money for his projects, so he feels strong and confident. Most of the things he teaches are very good and he encourages Thai people to go back to the early teachings of the Buddha, but unfortunately he lacks the sufficient knowledge of Buddhist history and Pali language, and that is why he makes some wrong judgments and obvious mistakes like this one. But he has a stubborn character and he will not admit his mistake, because he would probably "lose his face" in front of his followers. This is also why he was excluded from the Wat Pah Pong group.

I was interested in this issue and I collected some relevant texts and videos below, especially those from English-language sources which might not be well-known in Thailand. It really seems that in the early history of the Sangha (until the time of Milindapanha or even later?) the number of the Patimokkha rules was not fixed at "227" yet, but at some point later on the Theravada school decided to include all the sekhiya and adhikarana-samatha rules as well. This is what became the "Theravada standard" of the Patimokkha, which defines it as a Buddhist school in SE Asia ever since. If someone today wants to go back to the early stage of Sangha development (more than 2000 years ago) it is hardly possible, because that would change the whole way in which "Theravada" defines itself. And I doubt that the Sangha hierarchy in Thailand would approve of that, unless somebody very powerful (like a king) would push for that as part of "Sangha purification" (sangha-visodhana), which happened several times in history.

I just came across an edict by King Taksin who purified the Sangha and had exams for all monks to get rid of the ignorant ones, and then urged all bhikkhus to learn the "227 Patimokkha rules" with Thai translation and keep them well. So if the King commanded it, then this is what the Sangha had to do:

In Lesser Saka Era 1135 (CE 1773) King Taksin ofThonburi issued a ‘Decree on the Training in Ethics (silasikkha)' whichgave the text of the monastic code (Patimokkha) in Thai. Each of the227 rules was followed by a brief statement of the result of breaking it.For example, the ﬁrst four rules, the parajika, which entail expulsion fromthe order, are followed by ‘one who breaks [the rule] falls to the Hellof Unremitting Torment (Avicinaraka)’. The decree concludes with thestatement:These are the 227 training rules (sikkhapada): let a monk of goodfamily (samana-kulaputra) who does not know the commentaries(atthakatha) or the canon (pali) study them until they are bright andclear in his mind (khandha-santana), and then ordain and practiceaccording to this order in every respect.Not long afterwards, King Rama I was dissatisﬁed with the state of themonastic order. Starting in the ﬁrst year of his reign (1782) he issued a seriesof ten edicts, the Kot phra song, to reform the conduct of the monks.

1. Training rules within the Pātimokkha [Of these] there are 150. They are: the 4 Pārājikas, the 13 Sanghādisesas, the 30 Nissagīya-pācittīyas, the 92 Pācittīyas, the 4 Pāṭidesanīyas and the 7 Adhikaraṇasamathas.2. Training rules outside the Pātimokkha: An exact number is not given. They include the 2 Aniyatas and the 75 Sekhiyavattas.

Ajahn Buddhadasa also repeated this in one of his books, which is where Ajahn Kukrit got it from.

* * *

See also:

A Translation and Analysis of the Patimokkha by Nyanatusita Bhikkhu

The Pátimokkha and its Meaning

The Pátimokkha consists of two hundred and twenty training precepts (sikkhápada): 7 párájika, 13 saòghádisesa,2 aniyata, 30 nissaggiya pácittiya, 92 pácittiya, 4 páþidesanìya, and 75 sekhiya.The number of two hundred and twenty seven rules, which some modern scholars give, is incorrect. Theseven adhikaraóasamatha-dhammas are ways of settling legal issues and can therefore not be counted as training precepts. In the Suttavibhaòga there is not any Padabhájana comment on the adhikaraóasamathas andthis also indicates their non-sikkhápada status. It might also suggest that their inclusion in the Pátimokkha was a later addition.Buddhaghosa thera did not include the seven adhikaranasamathadhamma in the Mahávibhaòga (=Bhikkhuvibhaòga): “Thus the Great Analysis is two hundred and twenty training training rules …”: “Evaívìsádhikáni dve sikkhápadasatáni mahávibhaògo ti …”; D-a I 13.In a suttanta in the Aòguttara Nikáya “more than hundred and fifty” are given as the number of rulesthat come up for recitation. A I 230: “Venerable Sir, more than 150 training precepts come up for recitationevery half-month.”: “Sádhikam-idaí, bhante, diyaððhasikkhápadasataí anvaddhamásaí uddesaí ágacchati..” Asthe commentary86 suggests, this could be an earlier reckoning from the period when the Buddha wasregularly laying down new rules. (See also MN 65/M I 44–45 where Ven. Bhaddáli asks why there werefewer rules before.) However, it could also be that the 75 sekhiyas were originally not included in thePátimokkha or were not considered and counted as full training rules. The divergence in the number ofSekhiya rules in the early Buddhist schools also indicates this. (Note that 150 + 75 = 225, which approximates the number of rules in the Pm.) It could also be a round number, like the number 500 which is often used to denote a large group of monks in the Pali Canon.

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, pp.171-201

As for the date of the composition of the two Patimokkha codes, one for the bhikkhus (monks) and other for the bhikkhunis (nuns), it is important to bear in mind that according to an ancient Buddhist tradition cited by Buddhaghosa, the Patimokkha codes as they are handed down to us are two among the Vinaya texts which were not rehearsed in the first Buddhist council (Sumangalavilasini, pt. I., p. 17). It may he readily granted that the codification of the Patimokkha rules in the extant shape was not accomplished immediately after the demise of the Buddha. It is one thing to say this and it is quite another that the rules themselves in a classified form had not been in existence from the earlier times. The Cullavagga account of the first Buddhist council throws some clear light on the process of codification. It is said that the utterance of the dying Buddha authorising his followers to do away with the minor rules of conduct (Khuddanu-khuddakani sikkhapadani), if they so desired, formed a bone of contention among the bhikkhus who took part in the proceedings of the first Buddhist Council (See Milinda Panha, pp.142-144). They were unable to decide which were precisely the minor rules they were authorised to dispense with. Some suggested all but the four Parajika rules, some, all but the four Parajika and thirteen Samghadisesa rules, some, all but the four Parajika, 13 Samghadisesa and two Aniyata rules and thirty Nissaggiya rules; some, all but the four Parajika, 13 Samghadisesa, two Aniyata, thirty Nissaggiya and ninety-two Pacittiya rules and some suggested all but 4 Parajika, 13 Samghadisesa, 2 Aniyata, 30 Nissaggiya, 92 Pacittiya and 4 Patidesaniya rules. The suggestion stopped with the 4 Patidesaniya rules and did not proceed beyond them, leaving us in the dark as to what the bhikkhus meant by all but 11 all these " (counted by names). The Patimokkha code in its final form includes two hundred and twenty-seven rules, that is to say, the seven adhikarana samathas and seventy-five sekhiya rules in addition to those mentioned in the Cullavagga account. Omitting the 75 sekhiya rules the total of the Patimokkha precepts of conduct would come up to 152, If the theras of the first Buddhist Council had in their view a Patimokkha code in which the 75 Sekhiya rules had no place, the total of precepts in the code recognised by them was 152. Now we have to enquire if there is any definite literary evidence to prove that in an earlier stage of codification, the total of the Patimokkha precepts was fixed at 152. Happily the evidence is not far to seek. The Anguttara Nikaya, as we heave seen above, contains two passages to indicate that the earlier Patimokkha code contained one and half hundred rules or little more (Sadhikam diyaddhasikkhapadasatam). * The earlier Patimokkha code with its total of 152 rules may be shown to have been earlier than the Suttavibhanga on the ground that the Sutta-Vibhanga scheme makes room for the 75 Sekhiya rules, thereby rocognising the Patimokkha total to be 227 which was possible only in the second or final stage of codification of the Patimokkha rules.[ * Cf. Milinda Panha which refers to the some total of the Patimokkha rules in the expression "Diyaddhesu Sikkhapadasatesu."]

This discussion will first examine the meaning and contents of Pratimoksa (Pali: Patimokkha) as well as how it has been defined in Vinaya texts, particularly in Pali canon. The content and number of training rules in Pratimoksa are particularly significant in Buddhist chronology according to the Pali canons and other sources from various schools. According to Pachow, the Milindapanha (Nikaya) and Agama (Chinese translation) provide the exact numbers of Pratimoksa; the Pali canon gives 150 rules whereas other sutras in Agama (such as Samyktagama sutras, cf. A. III.87 Sadhika; A. III. 85-86 Sekha; and, A. III. 83 Vajjputta) give 205 rules. However, both the numbers and documents provide an important connection by stressing that the rules have been recited every half month during Uposatha days. Another source, the Pali Text Society’s translation, noted precisely 150 rules; the 75 Sekhiyas and 2 Aniyata were added subsequently, creating 227 total rules for bhikkhus’ training.

(See W. Pachow, A Comparative Study of The Pratimoksa: On the basic of its Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit and Pali versions (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2000)

* * *

About the growing number of sekhiya rules:

Charles S. Prebish: "The Role of Prātimokṣa Expansion in the Rise of Indian Buddhist Sectarianism"In Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, third series, no. 9, 2010.

So now the Mahathera-samakhom verdict is out: All Theravada monks should chant 227 Patimokkha rules. To cut it down to 150 is not correct. Ajahn Kukrit will receive an official letter about this and will be expected to follow it.

If they are following the main rules and putting aside the etiquette rules then they are doing better than most except the strictest forest monks.

"Right effort is effort with wisdom. Because where there is wisdom, there is interest. The desire to know something is wisdom at work. Being mindful is not difficult. But it’s difficult to be continuously aware. For that you need right effort. But it does not require a great deal of energy. It’s relaxed perseverance in reminding yourself to be aware. When you are aware, wisdom unfolds naturally, and there is still more interest." - Sayadaw U Tejaniya

Yet I do Feel sad that that you find it necessary to write a subjective opinion like the one below here :

unfortunately he lacks the sufficient knowledge of Buddhist history and Pali language, and that is why he makes some wrong judgments and obvious mistakes like this one. But he has a stubborn character and he will not admit his mistake

Furthermore I too find it very reasonable to have absolute faith in the words of the Sammasambuddha, only.

In general his approach is similar to the Western trend to search for an "Early Buddhism" and only accept the (assumed) "words of the Buddha" as authoritative. The problem with this approach is that the words of the Buddha (buddhavacana) have been edited and preserved and passed on for centuries by generations of disciples (savaka) which, according to Ajahn Kukrit, are not trustworthy and don't have to be studied. He now embarks on a projects to extract only the "words of the Buddha" from the Tipitaka and publish his own Buddhavacana-pitaka instead. He does this without a knowledge of Pali, he has never studied Pali and passed through the Parien degrees like some other scholar monks, notably P.A. Payutto who has been critical of Ajahn Kukrit's approach. Ajahn Kukrit merely uses the various Thai translations of the Suttas and compares them, trying to weed out the commentarial explanations that have been inserted into the texts. In this case, the discussion revolves around the precise meaning of the word "sadhika" in Pali, which does not present any particular difficulty from the linguistic point of view, but unfortunately does not support his view. There are other examples where he makes the wrong judgement, such as insisting that all monks have to eat only one meal a day and it is an offence to eat twice a day. Here he relies on some Suttas which describe monks as eating only once a day, which would have been the case especially early on in the history of the Sasana. But later the Buddha made specific allowance to have some conjey in the morning as a breakfast, which is reported in the Vinaya and also a Sutta. Eating at one sitting (ekasanika) was then listed as one of the ascetic practices. So Ajahn Kukrit is picking and choosing from the Pali texts based on his own judgement without even considering linguistic or text-critical aspects. His disciples are in effect putting their trust in a single person who is re-interpreting the whole Tipitaka to them (but saying that he only quotes the Buddha's words). One would have to be more humble and consult with other knowledgeable people in order to accomplish such a task as Sasana purification. But most of what he teaches is good Dhamma and also his emphasis on Vinaya is commendable, especially compared to the typical Thai temple practice. It is just a conflict between traditionalists and purists.

Knowing Pali can sometimes be useful when we are not sure about the Thai or English translation, and it is good to check a number of different translations before deciding which is the correct one. _________

We use the word "precept" or "training rule" as a translation of the Pali term "sikkhāpada". I know that there is no reference to Uposatha-sīla in the Suttas actually and that this is a term introduced by the commentary. In this Sutta it just says that Uposatha has "8 factors" (anga) which obviously refers to the 8 training rules: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .khan.htmlThe Pali term is aṭṭhaṅgasamannāgato uposatho.

But the translation of ekabhattikā rattūparatā viratā vikālabhojanā (one-mealers, refrain from eating outside the time, desisting at night) is not so clear, because the first word can mean "eating one meal" or "eating in one part of the day".

I wonder if this video (explanation by P.A. Payutto) is a response to Ajahn Kukrit who says that all monks must eat only "once a day" otherwise they break Sīla. But perhaps he has mixed up the Pali terms here, because there is another specially defined ascetic practice (dhutanga) called ekāsanika which means "eating at one sitting" (i.e. eating only once and not sitting down again to eat on that same day).

Again this is an issue which could easily lead to misunderstandings and monks could reject Ajahn Kukrit's teachings (which are generally good and according to Buddhavacana) just because of making one small mistake. Actually in the Vinaya itself, it mentions that junior monks should offer some rice porridge to the senior monk early in the morning before going on almsround (piṇḍapāta):

Pupil's Duties

"Make a seat ready. If there is conjey (yāgu = rice porridge), then having washed a bowl, place the conjey near the mentor (ācariya). When he has drunk the conjey, then having given him water, having received the bowl, having lowered it (so as not to let the washing water wet one's robes), wash it properly without scraping it [C: knocking it against the floor] and then put it away. When the mentor has gotten up, remove the seat. If the place is soiled, sweep it. If the mentor wishes to enter the village for alms, give him his lower robe, receiving the lower robe (he is wearing) from him in return. (This is one of the few passages showing that the practice of having spare robes was already current when the Canon was being compiled.) Give him his belt; give him his upper and outer robe, arranged so that the upper robe forms a lining for the outer one (§). Having rinsed out the bowl, give it to him while it is still wet (i.e., pour out as much of the rinsing water as possible, but don't wipe it dry)."

I sense you are engaged in this emotionally, and it surprises me a bit.

I feel therefore your views on this may not be that objective.

But what do I know as a layman in Denmark.

So I have taken the liberty to ask a Thai friend, about his opinion on your words and Ajahn Kukrit,s metods.

You ven.Gavesako said :

"Trying to weed out the commentarial explanations that have been inserted into the texts."

And this is what my friend said :

It’s the Tathagata,s OWN Words that the instructed disciples should listen to the Buddha’s own words and not the words of others according to 3 THREE official Thai translations in Thailand.

You ven.Gavesako said :

"In this case, the discussion revolves around the precise meaning of the word "sadhika" in Pali, which does not present any particular difficulty from the linguistic point of view"

1. There are THREE official Thai translations in Thailand. The TWO of them say “only 150” and the another ONE says “the important 150”.

2. The THREE official Thai translations in Thailand are totally different from the English translation regarding this matter.

3. Not only were there THREE official Thai translations but also there are TWO wise and venerable Thai monks who passed away, one was Buddhasada Bhikkhu, the other one was the teacher of the teachers in Thailand who established a Pali-Thai school named Vajirananavarorasa who said “ONLY 150” and wrote a book on Vinaya which every new monk in Thailand stil must learn.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajirananavarorasa

4. Only Prayudh Payutto said more than 150 like the English translation. The dominant official books of Prayudh Payutto titled “Buddhadham” never said “more than 150”. Even through the latest revison this year 2014 still says “150”.

"Here he relies on some Suttas which describe monks as eating only once a day, which would have been the case especially early on in the history of the Sasana. But later the Buddha made specific allowance to have some conjey in the morning as a breakfast, which is reported in the Vinaya and also a Sutta. Eating at one sitting (ekasanika) was then listed as one of the ascetic practices"

. 5. In many tapes on you tube Ajahn Kukrit says monks can have more than one meal per day under conditions conditions following the Discipline the Tathagata gave.

"So Ajahn Kukrit is picking and choosing from the Pali texts based on his own judgement without even considering linguistic or text-critical aspects. His disciples are in effect putting their trust in a single person who is re-interpreting the whole Tipitaka to them (but saying that he only quotes the Buddha's words)".

During 6 years now he is taped almost every days at least twice a day on youtube.

We are Tough to check and re-check before trusting Ajarn Kukrit in Thailand as well.

jan fessel wrote:It’s the Tathagata,s OWN Words that the instructed disciples should listen to the Buddha’s own words and not the words of others according to 3 THREE official Thai translations in Thailand.

Looking at the Pāḷi, it appears to be talking about something beyond or exceeding 150 training rules. Looking for the Tathāgata's own words seems like a pursuit that would be better served by looking at the Pāḷi than by looking at translations. A literal translation appears to be something like "exceeding one-and-a-half hundred training rules".

The problem with Ajahn Kukrit and his disciples is that they are slow in catching up with the Pali studies and try to support their interpretations by quoting various published translations in Thai (not realizing that one translator might simply be be repeating the mistake of an earlier translator, or quoting him in their book without double-checking the Pali source due to lack of time).

There are many good things about the "Buddhawajana" movement in Thailand. One of them is that Ajahn Kukrit is inspiring Thai people to study the Suttas, rather than going to study Abhidhamma, which is what the Pariyatti approach normally was. However there is a danger in becoming isolated as a popular teaching monk and losing contact with other senior monks, i.e. not receiving enough feedback from others. Then one may come up with some new theory and start spreading it to many laypeople, before it has been tested and proved to be correct. Since Ajahn Kukrit was cut off from Wat Nong Pah Pong several years ago, I don't know if he can discuss his ideas with any other senior monks?

But how do we find the real Buddhavacana? This is where we have to be very careful and help each other to find the correct meaning of the Pali Suttas and Vinaya. Speaking about Thailand, Ajahn Buddhadasa has started the work, now Ajahn Kukrit has continued to collect all the information using modern technology, so that the Buddhavacana books can be printed and distributed. I have seen how Ajahn Kukrit does his multimedia presentations to convince Thai people that this is really the most complete and correct edition of the Buddha's teachings. However, if you listen to this explanation by P.A. Payutto who knows a lot about the Tipitaka, you can see that the Thai translations of the Suttas are not very reliable and not very consistent:

Even if one uses the E-Tipitaka program to search the whole Tipitaka, it is not very accurate because the Pali words could be translated in many different ways and one will not find what one is looking for. Especially if one has a new theory about something (like the 150 Patimokkha rules, or eating only 1 meal a day) one should go and ask some Pali scholars about it first of all and then compare many different sources. But I don't think that Ajahn Kukrit has done that: for example, he could go to visit P.A. Payutto and discuss it with him, but he prefers to hatch his own theories and then go on teaching them to large audiences. It seems to me that Ajahn Kukrit is like a student with MA degree who has excellent knowledge of the texts and can convince others to study them, but P.A. Payutto is like a student with PhD degree who also knows the Pali language and the history of the texts very thoroughly.

I am afraid that if Ajahn Kukrit continues to become more popular in Thailand, and at the same he continues to say that monks should only recite 150 Patimokkha rules (for example), the established Sangha organization will get uncomfortable with that and they will do something to exclude him, like they did with Santi Asok. Why? Because if you look at Theravada history, what has been most important in keeping it alive are not the philosophical teachings but instead the rituals which are performed by the monks, especially the Patimokkha recitation (even if the monks did not always keep the rules). If some monks start to change these rituals, it is like breaking away from the 2000+ year old tradition, and it will look like a new "nikaya". So this is something to be careful about.

Unfortunately Ajahn Kukrit does not speak much English and cannot read the Dhamma books written by Western Buddhists, because most of the new ideas that he is teaching now in Thailand have been discussed and written about in English already some 30-40 years ago. As the "Buddhawajana" network spreads to Thai centres around the world, there is a language barrier which they cannot easily overcome, and even though some of their members do speak English they still have not really connected to the already existing well-developed Western Buddhist scene following a similar approach. (That is why they still continue to use "Buddhawajana" instead of the standard Pali transcription "Buddhavacana".)

Now a debate started in Thailand about the authenticity of the Tipitaka (which Ajahn Kukrit questioned in part) and whether the existing Thai translations are in fact correct. Some people take a nationalist approach and criticize the eminent scholar P.A. Payutto saying that he is defaming the great Thai scholar monks of previous generations. This article sets out to defend the honour of the royal monk Maha Samana Chao Vajiranyanavarorasa, author of the Vinaya-mukha who also translated many Pali texts:http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=737711 (in Thai only)

* * *

Some interesting reading regarding reforms in the Thai Sangha inspired by Western ideas:

The Autobiography of Prince-Patriarch Vajiranana

I just found in the BSWA library a fascinating little book, the English translation of the autobiography of Vajiranana. (Autobiography: The Life of Prince-Patriarch Vajiranana. Ed & trans Craig J Reynolds, Ohio University, 1979.)

He was one of the very many sons of King Mongkut, and following on from Mongkut’s modernist tendencies, was perhaps the single greatest reformer in modern Thai Buddhism. His autobiography, one of the first of its kind in Thai literature, is brief, honest, and refreshingly candid, although it only covers the period of his early life, up to the first few years as a monk. The English edition is excellent, with a detailed introduction and very useful notes.

What comes across most strikingly is Vajiranana’s constant effort to balance the Dhamma and his duties and temptations as a prince. He details at length his period of decadence as a young man, with gambling and overspending, although he confesses he was a failure at being a drunkard and was never attracted to women. This period is interesting, although it follows an edifying formula, paralleling Siddhattha’s early life, and has a clear literary purpose in contrasting with his reform as he discovered Buddhism.

What is interesting, though, is that this reform happened not through an encounter with a monk or Buddhist teachings, but through his Scottish teacher, Dr Peter Gowan, who lived “like an Indian rishi” and who, among other things, persuaded Vajiranana to give up smoking. It’s fascinating to see how the east and west were closely intertwined even in those days, as Vajiranana repeatedly says how much he liked European ways, and says again and again that he did things just because they were European, whether good or bad. He makes explicit connections between the Sangha hierarchy and western religious forms, saying that the rank of chao khana is equivalent to the Church of England’s Bishop.

In addition to his encounters with Gowan, and of course with the various monks who he knew, his defining moment of dispassion came when he saw that a table that he had bought, and which he thought was so lovely, was in fact fairly cheaply made, and coming apart. This little observation turned him off materialism forever – a realistic psychological detail.

Vajiranana didn’t seem to have a very positive view of women, and saw one of the benefits of his initial stay in the monastery as a novice in his young teens very much in terms of the traditional process of an initiation into the men’s circle. It was the tradition that young princes would live in the Inner Palace among the Palace women until they ordained as novices around age 14, after which they would not return to the Inner Palace. Vajiranana says (p. 9) that he was happy to be in the monastery as:

‘the talk of women had no wit’… ‘Living at the monastery was beneficial in rapidly making my sensibilities and mannerisms more masculine, although in my subsequent residence there as a novice I tended to acquire less intrepid, feminine mannerisms.’

In his later teens he began to seriously study and reflect on the teachings. He was particularly struck by the Kalama Sutta ‘which taught one not to believe blindly and to depend on one’s own thinking.’ This was in the late 1800s, and he apparently noticed this sutta, which has come to define modernist Buddhism, by himself. Like King Mongkut before him, he took a sceptical attitude towards the miraculous events described in the texts, deciding, for example, that the attack by the army of Mara could not be true. But he says that he lacked the Pali expertise at the time to carefully investigate such cases, merely making up his mind and rejecting what he didn’t like. Only later did he come to realize that such teachings could be interpreted in an allegorical sense. He was not alone in taking such an inquiring attitude, for he remarks that:

After hearing senior monks object to certain passages I learned to make up my own mind, to select those passages which were acceptable to me and to reject, as if sifting out gold from the sand, those which were unacceptable…

Vajiranana refers to his strong temper, and while his autobiography is quite restrained and generous-spirited, he shows a degree of impatience for narrow-minded or overly ritualistic monks. He praises his teacher Brahmamuni, as “he did not have the narrow mindedness typical of a monk who thinks of himself as orthodox.” He writes critically of the dispute in his time between the ‘water’ monks and the ‘land’ monks – those who were ordained in a water sima were considered more pure than those ordained on land. He says, “Pious laywomen of that school fluttered about praising the ‘water monks’ and disparaging the ‘land monks’…”

Throughout, there is precisely no emphasis on any of the higher teachings. No meditation, no deep philosophy, no liberation, no Nibbana. When he mentions the benefits he has received from his Dhamma study, they are all very limited, worldly concerns.

In this regard, the forest tradition has surely made an incalculable contribution, by placing meditation and liberation where they should be, at the heart. Yet in their dismissal of study, the forest tradition has forgotten how much they owe to reformers such as Vajiranana. Without such scholars, there would be no critical study of Buddhist texts, no understanding of how the Pali suttas are the most authentic teachings of the Buddha, and subsequently no understanding of the central role of meditation in liberation. While forest tradition monks rely, usually unconsciously, on the reforms brought about with such effort by Vajiranana and his generation, too many of them have lost the spirit of inquiry that illuminates this period of Thai Buddhist reform. Now, the idea that one can investigate the teachings and make up one’s own mind is regarded as a formal heresy (ditthivipatti). Modern Thai Buddhism was formed on the basis that the Vinaya is the authority, not the opinions of the teachers (acariyavada). For much of the modern forest tradition, sadly, the opinions of the teachers has become all that matters, and recourse to the Dhamma and Vinaya of the Buddha is dismissed out of hand.